#'you know - the new king henry vii'

[natequarter]

it's a bit hard to identify name trends as such in the past, but the first half of the 1500s definitely had a thomas surge, right? there were so many fucking thomases

[saphirafoxgirlspost1]

(Open Rp) "Legend of the Golden Dragon"

Long time ago, Saphira and Her Now Soon-to-be-Ex-boyfriend Name "Daniel Landus Rooster" Who she's been with him for the past 10 years of their relationship and Daniel is from a Lovely wealthy family as well and his parents are very good decent people..During the Times, She was once pregnant on the 9th year and She was thrilled that she heard that she's going to have a baby girl and so Does The parents Of Daniel rooster..but To daniel who heard about this…Wasn't really happy about this…He began to act Childish and wanted to have a son..but then..Saphira tore his ass up with a harshful Lecture and telling him To Stop acting Like King Henry VIII, She told him that he needs to get his act striaght up..and she heard the other news that she not only have a baby girl but a baby boy..She was thrilled..but.. sadly..the car ran her over and cause her to have miscarriage of her 2 unborn children..she was at the hospital very devastated..and next year..Daniel is all happy and all..while saphira find it odd about him..he came home late until one day, She got called From the cops that Daniel is in jail For Murder and also prostitution and Embezzlement of Saphira's Fathers company that he works for…Saphira's eyes widen in rage..and she storms to the police Station to pay a visit on jail.and saphira sees Daniel wearing an Orange jumpsuit..and Daniel sees rage on saphira's face as he knew That he is in The WHOLE mess Of trouble written all over him..And then She Picked Up the Phone With anger and Disgust..and she said in anger tone,

Saph: "Where the Hell Were you During the night?"

Daniel: "Listen saph…I was shopping and u-"

Then saphira Slammed on the table and Snapped at him

Saph: "DON"T LIE TO ME!!, I heard what you did..and I want to know..Did you Purposly ran over me in the car?..I heard from one of the police that they Saw you drive the car..and run over me and cause the death of Our children..and I Want the truth..Right..Now."

Daniel : Sighs softly "Yes it was me.."

Saph: "WHAT!!!?? Why Did you Do that Daniel!? What were you thinking!!? You Killed Our 2 Unborn babies!!"

Daniel: "Wait? Two babies?"

Saph: " Yea! You Dimwitted LOUT!! I was Having one boy and One girl! I was going to tell you but now, You Killed them Ya Monstrous BRUTE! You wanted that Son SO Desparately Mr. King-Henry-VII But YOU Lost your Damn Chance! ALL because of you Hated My Daughter So much That you Did the Unthinkable!! So tell me…Why did you go to the Burlesque For Prostitution?!"

Saphira was in rage as Daniel was shocked, His face was pale and now he's filled with regret and horrid..and then..he answers

Daniel: "I-i…sighs I wanted to have fun..so i slept with 15 girls in that place…"

Saphira's eye widen with shock mix with now fully malice in her and She said,

Saph: "YOU WHAT!!?? Not only you Killed my babies but Sleeping with 15 Whore in that godforsaken place!! Is there anything that I wanted to know about this!?"

Daniel: "Well..your not going to like it..But I got one of them pregnant."

Then saphira was so in rage that she has Blood shots in her eyes and she slammed her fist on the table in anger..and she said

Saph: "OH THAT"S IT!! Your Not only a Murderer and a thief but your nothing but a Mangy Cheating DOG! But not only this! You Are Mean, Rotten, Selfish, Cruel, Wicken and LOW-Down! and your parents is on it's way..and Boy They have a Bone to pick with ya! They already Knew What you did To their grandbabies! and I'm going to make sure That you'll pay me for all the Damages That you put Upon me and Now my precious angels! And also..From this day Forth, We're Over! We're done! and I hope That your getting what you Deserve and I'm going to make sure you'll Never Set Foot in my Property again!"

Daniel: "But Saph! You know how strict my parents is! I heard they'll bail me out and make me Pay back! Please I'm sorry..lets start over!"

Saphira: " Well Thats too Bad Daniel! You Lost your chance to be a good father to my kids, But now Your not even fit to be a Father in the first place! I Hope that Woman will place your child at Foster care because No Child ain't going to have Such a Horrible Father who only killed Children all because of Obsession of having a Son! I am Sick and tired of your Cruel behavior and your Little TroubleSome antics! We're through Daniel Rooster! Good-bye and Good Riddance!"

Saphira Hangs up and Left him..and His parents just arrived to pay his bail and Dragged Daniels ass to his home and His father and Mother Tore his ass Into New about Acting Irresponsible and unthinkable thing he did and Telling him what a failure he is as a man and Human being itself..and then His parents apolgize To saphira and her father about Their Horrible son's Troublesome behavior..They paid saphira Compensation For the damage He cause…and Now Daniel is Force to work day and Night to Pay His parents up for many part time job.. As Five years went by, Saphira fell into a despair Until Her Father Decided to Invited Every single Men who wanted to be with her..but all turns out..they only love her wealth..and He sighs and Pray to Inari the kitsune goddess to Give Saphira a man of her Life who would treated her right but then..There's a scroll that fell off the Shelf..and he discovered there's a way to get any elegible Man to retrieve and rewarded them With His daughter..So the scroll shows That there's a legendary Dragon armor made of Pure Gold and Only pure hearted Lad who will wear the armor but there's a bad Armor that was sealed up for all time..and he who wears that Dark Dragon armor can possessed such a corrupted Powers beyond their wildest dreams..So He Invited every elegible young men to find a golden armor and he will reward someone by the hands of his beloved daughter….then One of the Brave man came To Saphira's father and Said…

[deadlydelicious]

ok not to be a fucking British history nerd on main but yall

Henry's royal house is 'Hanover-Stuart' - implying he comes from the House of Hanover

but the last Hanover monarch was Queen Victoria. Her children inherited their father (her cousin's) house- Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. After that the British line of Hanover effectively ended

So the persistence of the name then implies that in the Red White and Royal Blue universe, Queen Victoria - who we know exists as a Queen in universe because of the food fight joke- was either succeed by a much more distantly related Hanover- implying her children either didn't exist or were somehow removed from the line of succession (hello new fictional civil war of 1901), OR it implies that Queen Victoria somehow, in 1840- changed the entire system of patralineage into a matralineage so her children would inherit the Hanover title. This would then in turn imply that the female line would have to be acknowledged as the stronger claimant to the throne meaning the heir to Victoria's throne would NOT have been Edward VII, but instead Victoria's first born- a daughter also called Victoria (hereafter referred to as V2 for clarity).

But in real life V2 went on to become the empress of Germany and the mother of the last German Kaiser - you know the one who was CREEPILY almost incestuously obsessed with his mothers hands and who ALSO LARGELY CAUSED WW1 BY MAKING 1910s GERMANY AN EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE MILITARY POWER TO RESOLVE IS DADDY ISSUES?! But if in RW&RB V2 never became the German Empress, she never would have had Wilhelm II, and would instead have married a man of lower station and went on to continue the Hanover line in England, meaning there would be no Willhelm II - whos infamously erratic and hostile foreign policy led to the destabilization of Germany's position in Europe and was likely the main contributor to the reactionary foreign policies of other European powers that then caused the beginning of the conflict that became WW1.

SO IN RW&RB, IS THERE NO WW1?!

and that's not even getting into the Stuart of it all - a Royal line that ended IN 1714 AND WAS THE WHOLE SOURCE OF THE JACOBITE UPRISINGS. like if the Stuart line continued in the name, that implies that instead of it dying out with Anne, and the distant relatives of James II then forming the Jacobites to reclaim the throne, they somehow wove them back into the family tree?!

So were there no Jacobite Uprisings in RW&RB?

Is that why Henry is able to be styled as Prince of Wales, despite him not being the Crown Prince- because in this universe with the Stuarts still part of the royal family the Crown Prince's seat now becomes Prince of Scotland, also implying that Scotland has also now become a principality rather than a kingdom?! And how did the Stuart line stay in? Did Victoria NOT marry Albert, but instead marry a Stuart? But no, because the last Stuart was literally a fatherless priest who died 20 years before she was born, and the V&A still exists in universe, so Victoria still definitely married Albert. So did V2 get married off to some distant Stuart (most likely Francis V of Modena)? IS SCOTLAND A PRINCIPALITY NOW?! WHO CAUSED WW1?! WAS IT BECAUSE OF THE FICTIONAL BRITISH CIVIL WAR OF 1901?!

WHY HAVE YOU DONE THIS AMAZON. YOUR SILLY LITTLE CHANGE TO AVOID PISSING OF PONCEY KING CHAZ IS GOING TO EAT HOLES IN MY BRAIN

pictured here: my mental state rn

[asgards-princess-of-mischief]

Last Updated: 2023-12-23

Disclaimer: I am not the author of these stories, just sharing my favourite Prince Hal/Henry V stories. Find the authors' links below. If you want your work removed, message me privately.

Legend: 〔E〕 ⇢ Erotic/Steamy | 〔F〕 ⇢ Fluff | 〔A〕 ⇢ Angst/Hurt 〔M〕 ⇢ Minor Angst/Hurt | 〔C〕 ⇢ Comfort | ♥︎ ⇢ Established Relationship | 𑁍 ⇢ Pregnancy/Children | 🚫 ⇢ Content Warning

❆ Twelve Days of Christmas￨Prt. II￨Prt. III￨Prt. IV￨Prt. V￨Prt. VI￨Prt. VII￨Prt. VIII￨ by smolvenger • 18+ • 〔F᜶A᜶C〕 • ♥︎ •

Summary: "You must face your first royal holiday celebration —the Twelve days from Christmas to Epiphany —for your first time as the bride and queen of the new, young King Henry V, a man you were arranged to marry, a man you hardly know."

❆ Green Sleeves by just-the-hiddles • 18+ • 〔E᜶F〕 •

Summary: "Hal should be at the royal residence for the holiday but is instead at a local inn with Falstaff and Poins. He has his eyes on you."

See Also: Navigation || Prince Hal/Henry V Master Index

Authors: @just-the-hiddles || @smolvenger ||

[cantarella-if]

Since you guys seemed to like the piece I did with Lucrezia Borgia's hair, I thought I would show you another artifact that will be mentioned in Book 1 as being in the museum. It's one of my favorite historical pieces.

This looks like a picture of an ordinary (if not extravagant) bedframe, but the truth is, it's the only surviving bed from the middle ages! It was constructed in 1486 for King Henry VII of England and his new bride Elizabeth of York, parents to the infamous Henry VIII. While their son may have not had the best luck with romance, to put it mildly for his six queens, Henry and Elizabeth's story was the exact opposite and very sweet.

Elizabeth became heir to the throne of England as the oldest child of King Edward IV after her two younger brothers mysteriously disappeared (look up the Princes in the Tower if you get a chance, the story is really interesting). At the time, Henry Tudor was the Duke of Richmond, exiled after his family took the wrong side in the ongoing civil war at the time, the Wars of the Roses. Both were cousins; Henry came from the Lancastrian half of the ruling Plantagenet family represented by the symbol of the red rose while Elizabeth was from the Yorkist side who took the symbol of the white rose.

As of 1483, England was ruled by Elizabeth's uncle Richard III, who is now famous because of Shakespeare's play which incorrectly portrayed him as a hunchbacked tyrant who murdered his nephews to gain power. Richard had been on the throne for two years before Henry came back to England with an army as the last male member of the Lancastrian line and the two fought to the death in August of 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth Field, which saw Richard killed and Henry take the crown by right of conquest in a real-life Game of Thrones.

One of Henry's first acts as king was to marry the beautiful and kindhearted Elizabeth, not for romantic reasons, but because she was technically heir to the throne and he needed an airtight claim to power. Their marriage brought an end to decades of civil war and merged the two families together into one of the most infamous dynasties in history; the Tudors.

Eventually it grew into a love match that lasted 16 years. This bed was commissioned for their wedding night and it was perhaps here that the couple conceived the the first of their seven children (only three of which survived into adulthood) and brought a new era to England. However, the happiness all came to an end when Elizabeth died in childbirth with a stillborn daughter on 11 February 1503, her thirty-seventh birthday. Henry was devastated to the point that the normally stoic man who refused to show any signs of weakness or strong emotion in the past, broke down so badly that it was feared he himself might die of grief. He locked himself away and refused to let anyone see him including his doctors, becoming a cold recluse who instead became obsessed with his money and filling up the royal treasury. When he died six years later, it was said to have been from a broken heart. His son and heir Henry VIII commissioned a splendid tomb in Westminster Abbey made of gilded bronze, pictured below, as a testament to their love and seems to have spent his life trying to find the same kind of companion for himself as his mother was to his father.

After Elizabeth's death, the bed disappears from history, probably because Henry refused to sleep in it after her passing, and it was packed away until after bouncing around between locations, it was sold at auction in 2010 without the buyer knowing it's significance. It was later proven to have been made of authentic Tudor era English oak and is now one of the most important pieces of furniture in England behind the throne itself.

[buffyfan145]

My mind was absolutely reeling last night from that picture Maxim posted of him, Lloyd, and Charlie that I realized something a bit spoilerly. :D We've gotten spoilers that Charlie's Halbrand form of Sauron is going to be clean-shaven now in season 2 and seeing the 3 of them like that I realized not only does this weirdly make it that the 3 of them look alike with similar hairstyles but that was the popular hairstyle for the kings in the late Wars of the Roses, one of my favorite historical periods that I study and read/watch about. If you look at the actual portraits of Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII they all had the same shoulder length hair and were clean-shaven (plus the first two were brothers and the 3rd their distant cousin who married the first's daughter).

Then it also reminded me of how I realized while watching the show and finally reading "The Silmarillion" that a lot of it is similar to The Wars of the Roses especially with Galadriel's family being so similar to the Plantagenets dividing into the Houses of York and Lancaster, the whole Three Sons of York/Noldor and using the sun as part of their symbol, the seemingly endless battles and sides switching for power, and then an arranged Tudor marriage that turned into a real loving one that actually ended it between Elizabeth of York (who lost her brothers and so many family members due to all this) and Henry VII. It's why I wrote that Haladriel "Queen of Hearts, King of Spades" as I actually wonder if Tolkien was inspired by this too to create the 1st and 2nd Ages. Then adding in that Charlie confirmed part of his audition as Halbrand/Sauron was reading from Shakespeare's "Richard III" as Richard III. LOL Even though those of us who study it know since they found Richard III's actual remains that Shakespeare fictionalized a lot and made him more evil and deformed as the real Richard only had scoliosis which only a few would've even known about at the time and was easily hidden (And I say this as someone who likes the Tudors but know they put out a lot of slander against Richard after Henry took over and yes I still think he ordered the nephews murders but likely regretted it. As they say the truth is likely a version of both Tudor and Ricardian histories combined).

So again with spoilers it seems interesting that this is going to be Halbrand's look in season 2 and that he seems to be keeping his King of the Southlands persona which likely is to recruit the men and the dwarves to his side. And then seeing the 3 of them like this also why it makes sense he keeps Halbrand as his main form when he goes back to Númenor in the future and the downfall. Then mentioning again that Aragorn is the descendant of Isildur and Elendil and that Sauron's Halbrand form looks like him too. :)

ETA: Fellowship of Fans has now posted again that picture and saying that they're taking it as confirmation about Halbrand's new clean-shaven look in season 2. LOL :D

[richmond-rex]

Could you please tell more about why Elizabeth went to the Tower of London in 1503 but unexpectedly gave birth to her child? And why did Henry VII go to the Tower at that time? Thank you very much!

Hi! We don't exactly know why went to the Tower in February 1503, but presumably they were there to commemorate the feast of Candlemas, the day of the Virgin Mary's purification after the birth of Jesus Christ (a ritual which medieval women replicated in their own personal churchings). It was an important holyday in the Christian liturgical year and as such the king and queen would publicly attend mass along with the rest of the court. It was a day of special solemnity because Candlemas was considered a 'major double feast' and a 'day of estate', meaning that during the ceremony the king would wear 'his sircot, his kirtille and his … ermyne' and was to have on his head 'a hat of estate and his swerd before hym'. At the beginning of the mass a courtier would carry a candle (taper) before the king and queen which would be deposited at the altar. In the evening a 'void' occurred where nobles gathered in the great chamber to take refreshments with the king (and presumably the same happened in the queen's chambers).

Although Henry and Elizabeth were not frequent residents of the Tower in the first fifteen years of his reign, they used the place for ceremonial occasions such as coronations (1485 & 1487), diplomatic visits (1496 & 1501), openings of parliament (1497), St George's feast day (1500) and tournaments (1500). Henry ordered a new tower to be built there in 1501-1502 which might indicate a growing interest in expanding their use of the Tower. Accordingly, we see Henry and Elizabeth residing there from about 13 December until 22 December 1502. At some point they left the Tower to spend Christmas at Richmond where Henry paid for Elizabeth's furs. On January 26 Elizabeth went back from Richmond to London but I don't know exactly where she stayed from 26 January to 1 February. Her expenses suggest that first she went to Westminster and then to the Tower. All we know is that she was at the Tower on the 2nd of February (Candlemas) according to two contemporary sources:

Upon Candlemas Day in the night following the day, the King and the Queen then being lodged in the Tower of London, the Queen that night was delivered of a daughter, where she intended to have been delivered at Richmond. (Vitellius A XVI manuscript)

Candlemas Day in the night, the King and Queen being then at the Tower, the Queen travailed of child suddenly and was delivered of a daughter, the which was christened in the parish church of the said Tower & named Katherine. (The Great Chronicle of London)

Besides those two reports, that Henry was also at the Tower on that day is suggested by his offering at All Hallows Barking, a church located next to the Tower. My opinion is that they meant to spend Candlemas there but not to stay too long: the chroniclers as well as Elizabeth's payments suggest not only that she had a premature birth ('travailed of child suddenly') but that her confinement had been prepared at Richmond, so I doubt Elizabeth travelled to the Tower to have her child there. Another indication is that Henry usually lodged in the same residence Elizabeth had her deliveries and his household stuff only arrived at the Tower on 3 February, the day after her delivery. He stayed there until Elizabeth passed away by which point he departed to Richmond to ‘pass his sorrows’.

[He] took with him certain of his secretest, and privately departed to a solitary place to pass his sorrows and would no man should resort to him but such his Grace appointed.

We know Elizabeth had been ill at several moments during her last pregnancy. On 18 September 1502 she authorised payment of an apothecary’s bill and on the following days Henry sent for her surgeon. In November she had been visited by two nurses: Mistress Harcourt at Westminster on the 14th and 'a French woman' at Baynard’s Castle on the 26th. In January, Henry rewarded and sent for her surgeon once more on the 20th when he was at Richmond (and according to her expenses, Elizabeth was there too). Henry would send for a physician for Elizabeth for the last time on the first days of February but the doctor arrived too late.

I wonder if the ceremonies involved with a 'day of estate' such as Candlemas proved too tiresome for Elizabeth? It might have seemed symbolic for those around Elizabeth to see the queen going into labour on Candlemas, the day of the purification of the Virgin. If they interpreted that as the sign of a blessing, her passing a few days afterwards (on her own birthday no less) might have changed their opinion.

That's all I have but I hope my answer was helpful to you! 🌹x

[squarebracket-trickster]

new here but am wondering what your current WIP is about? if you don't feel comfortable I understand!! love your blog btw <3

Omg thank you so much!!

My main WIP right now is WIPVII (placeholder name until I am forced to actually name it).

It is a lower YA (for 13-15 year olds) low/no magic fantasy (takes place in a different world) with a romance subplot.

It's a (high/late) medieval western European-inspired setting, specifically the year 1333 CE in southern England - I try to be somewhat historically accurate because it makes the setting feel a little fresher than leaning on the medieval European stereotypes common to a lot of fantasy. But alas, there is only so much research I am willing to do (and I did take some liberties because, dammit I wanted a masquerade ball).

The WIP draws inspiration from Shakespeare comedies (Cymbeline, Twelfth Night, The Tempest etc), Alfred Tennyson poems (in particular "The Splendour Falls"), the Robin Hood myth, and fairy tales and medieval epics in general.

[More below the cut]

The blurb:

Two kingdoms long at war have laid down their arms at last, but peace hinges on treaty that can only be sealed by the marriage of the eldest son of the King of Dian to the eldest daughter of the King of Cithidy. But Isolda de Angenet, the princess of Cithidy, has gone missing and she does not want to be found. In disguise as a peasant boy, Isolde (known as Aldus) accidentally falls in with a ragtag group of bandits - and Henry, a knight with a mysterious past - who have been sent to find the missing princess and deliver her to the outlaw lord Hob. But there is some larger scheme afoot here. Once more, a Cithian army marches reluctantly toward Dian and Isolde fears the only way to stop it is to return to her old life and join the husband she has never met in Dian. Isolde has forsworn this marriage but unless she can find another way, she fears she will have to choose between her own freedom and peace. In the meantime, Henry is hiding something and Isolde will find out the truth, hopefully before Henry finds out who she really is.

Some other things about this WIP:

The name: WIPVII is just WIP + the roman numeral for 7 (VII). I refuse to properly name this WIP until I am forced to, so WIPVII is a placeholder name. I have a lot of WIPs so I number them from oldest to newest to keep track of them (this has nothing to do with the order I choose to work on them). This also means, when a WIP doesn't have a name yet, I have a convenient placeholder name ready to go! WIPVII is 7 because it is the 7th WIP I thought up.

Status: I am currently 60% of the way through my 3rd draft.

Word count: draft 2 was 77k and I am expecting draft 3 to be similar (around 82k because I added some description and worldbuilding and the prose is more flowery). I am aiming for 80k, give or take 5k.

WIPVII is meant to be a standalone.

--

The was inspired by the premise:

A princess runs away from an arranged marriage and ends up falling in love with the person she was supposed to marry (neither of them know who the other really is).

-- this is technically a spoiler, but they way the story is written I think most readers will guess the twist looong before it comes. And honestly, I think the story is a lot more fun if you figure it out well in advance. I am a sucker for dramatic irony.

[angevinyaoiz]

Hiii, I'm a newbie :') Could you recommend me books and documentaries about Richard and Philip, and that period in general (12th century)? I read somewhere that a new book about their relationship came out recently. Thank you <3

Hi! Thanks for asking. Its funny since I still think of myself as a "newbie" in a lot of ways since I just got into this whole mess of 12th Century England/France drama probably around like last December, so there are definitely lots of people who know more (ppl, feel free to suggest anything if I haven't mentioned it)

To my knowledge there aren't any specific books or sources that are just about their interactions (aside from That One Recent Fiction book that is. Well that's it's OWN thing lmao) but since the family affairs of the Angevin-Plantagenets and the French kings were very closely entwined with the rest of the family and various other parties, there's lots of overlap.

I personally love it because on one hand it's Free Soap Opera Entertainment, and on the other, a look at a time and environment that is very fascinating and extremely different than the time we live in now. Here I've listed the different books and video I've gotten around to, my thoughts on them, as well as some of my thoughts on uhhhh historical RPF shipping in general:

Books:

The Plantagenets by Dan Jones - An overview of the dynasty overall. A good general read, and available as audiobook! Should be available in most libraries. I haven't finished it since I've only read up to the reign of Henry III, but it presents the overall timeline in an entertaining and straightforward way, with a lot of general context and room for showing the colorful personalities of these Messy Bitches

Henry the Young King by Matthew Strickland - this is probably my FAVORITE of the books I've read so far! Sadly out of print, but it's available to borrow on The Internet Archive, and copies can be found pretty easily on eBay :) It focuses on Henry II's original heir, the titular Henry the Young King, eldest of his son who was co-crowned with him, rebelled against him, fought against Richard in Aquitaine, and died early. It goes into a study of his person and role in the politics of the day, how kingship and war were viewed in the 12th century and a lot about the weird lord/vassal relationship between the French and English Kings that made up the bulk of the conflict and drama. Very long and comprehensive, but very readable. I came away with a much better understanding of everything from this book especially.

Richard the Lionheart: King and Knight by Jean Flori. Flori has a very entertaining writing style that somehow is very funny to me when he's talking about the interpersonal dramas, especially with Philip during and after the crusades. The first half is a biography, the latter half of the book is devoted to exploring the concept of chivalry and how it developed, and also exploring subjects of Richard's legend and image

He has many amusing but overall respectful beefs with fellow historian John Gillingham's scholarship throughout, especially in regards to the much debated subject of his sexuality.

Richard I by John Gillingham - haven't finished this one yet but enjoying what I've read so far. Gil is more detailed in some aspects, which is pretty fun. Apparently he has a reputation (from Flori) for being a bit too much of a Richard fanboy which I haven't come across yet but he is informative, including accounts from Muslim historians during the Third crusade.

I haven't read as much specific media/biographies about Philip and the Capetians, and thus all my media is very Plantagenet-biased. there is an educational graphic novel in French that looks interesting but I don't have access to it (and also I don't speak French but. Ah well). For my purposes however since the role of Louis Vii and Philip II are very entwined with the story of the Angevins we do get a pretty decent look into people's personalities, decisions and behaviors, and how they viewed loyalty and kingship in a lot of the books above.

VIDEOS

"Britain's Bloodiest Dynasty" timeline documentary centering about King Henry and his drama with Becket and his sons and hosted by Dan Jones (who also wrote The Plantagenets, which I listed in the books section) It's a pretty fun and understandable intro, even if the overly dramatic faux Game of Thrones reenactment is really corny and also hard to see because the lighting is SO dim. It's a little oversimplified and focuses a bit too much on analyzing Henry's Personality as the source of his Issues rather than maybe looking at a wider picture, but it's fun and very beginner friendly.

Confessions de l'histoire - french web series in a reality show "confessional" style about historical figures, there's a video on the 2nd crusade (focuses on Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII's relationship), and one on the 3rd crusade (with Richard and Philip) It's very comedic focused but from what I've watched includes a LOT of detail. It scratches my itch for that goofy edutainment but good quality.

Secrets de Histoire - Alienor d'Aquitaine - this one is also french only but documentary focusing on Eleanor's life . It also has very goofy Reenactors in it with one of the worst wigs I've ever seen, as well as reusing footage from the earlier documentary and other movies loool

"The Place of Battle in the Context of Civil War c. 1100-1217" Lecture by Matthew Strickland about how people viewed (or avoided) Battles specifically in the context of civil wars and dynastic contexts. - I love watching lectures by the authors of books ive read, and this one is both very watchable and provides some great context!

On Shipping

My approach to my yaoi delusions (both in general fiction and in perceptions of historical people) is mostly that i am less concerned about "was XYZ queer FOR REAL," since while I do find serious discussions of historical queer history etc very interesting, a lot of this is more separately blasting my problematic sicko radioactive beam of perception in any direction lol. I like seeing characters who are tied up in a web of context (especially familial/dynastic context) and I love knowing familial-cultural background since it gives me a lot of fun material to work with for characterization. Learning more details the better for me, since a lot of the reality is stranger and more fortuitous than fiction , and thats what makes the characters unique, having so many angles to them. But also in the end, it really is all a delusion informed by my very 21st century fujo inventor taste, and I like keeping that in mind, as a sort of separate category from being informative haha. I could write about my headcanons and how I make things interact with the fictional portrayals, as well as thoughts on eh various problematicisms. But this has gone on long enough. Those are posts for another day...That being said I'm weak for both serious drama behavior and really silly drama behavior and the way people come across in these books especially lend itself well to both .

Hope this was somewhat helpful! I enjoyed reading a lot of this a lot, it's a fascinating subject, thanks for giving me a chance to ramble about it.

[inky-duchess]

Hi Duchess, Happy Hogmanay/New Year depending on when you read this.

The Arthur thing goes back to the Tudors. Henry VII had an elder son called Arthur, he'd have been king instead of Henry VIII if he hadn't come down with some horrible disease, "The Sweating Sickness", but he did and we got Henry VIII instead. Henry then married his brother's widow as his first wife, and we all know how things went from there.

Ever since then Arthur has got a spot on the no-no list, along with John as it was considered unlucky as a first name. That sufficed up until the Hanovers with their parade of Georges, after them then nobody wanted to deal with the constitutional mess a new King Arthur would have with regnal numbering and how the press would make hay with the name every time there was even a hint of disagreement between government and monarch. It'd just be a PR nightmare.

So it is half late Medieval Superstition, and half modern PR moves.

Thank you for all the posts over 2023, and all the best for 2024

Yes, he's the one I mentioned who became an "almost" but I do think they tend to avoid the name for that reason as well as the weight of the name and implications of failure. Happy New Year x

[realcatalina]

Tudor battles: Bosworth Field

Monday 22 August 1485 marks the beginning of Tudor era.

It was day of the last battle of War of Roses, and the first Tudor battle. We know how it ended. Richard III, last York died in this battle and Henry Tudor emerged victorious and became the first Tudor King, Henry VII.

One could go for hours about politics and intrigue before and all that happened afterwards. We now know that battle happened South of town called Market Bosworth, not really close to it but the name Bosworth stuck. 

But what has happened during the battle itself? I am no expert into historical battles, but I’ll try to explain anyway. So here is my ‘short’ view upon this battle:

Before going more about battle itself I wish to make some things clear about the two rivals:

It seems Henry VII was never before in battle(although he probably was trained in fighting as child despite being more or less hostage) and many years of his exile he was kept locked up in small room, not enjoying himself and not beeing able to train properly.

On other hand, Richard III was experienced and skilled warrior.

I strongly I recommend you watch documentary called King Richard III New Evidence of His Spinal Deformity, which you can find on Youtube. It gives great insight to how Richard’s scoliosis affected him as warrior.

Long story short-it didn’t prevent him from being good warrior and expert horse-man. In fact medieval saddle gave his back the support right where he needed, armour helped too.

But there is evidence he suffered from osteoarthritis where his scoliosis turned the most and that probably made him be in great deal of pain. Likely that is reason why during last 3 years of his reign he drank a lot of wine(+ beer which he drank even before)- and despite being very high status before, his diet as King became crazy overindulgence in delicatesies etc.

While we have remeber alcohol content back then was lower(still I don’t know if he still had hang of it or not) it it’s likely he was using wine and food as comfort for his pain.

Scientist think this big change to his diet might have effected him as warrior.

To my surprise Richard’s bones reveal him as somebody of much slender frame than I expected. Nimble on his feet and fast. But not for long time.

Richard’s scoliosis made Richard out of breath faster, to tire faster.

And imo this was one of the reasons why Richard decided to end Henry VII himself. He gave it all he had, knowing the battle would be long otherwise and that didn’t bode well for him. Unfortunately for him, he didn’t manage to kill his oponent.

There are many accounts of the battle.

I have used this article by English Heritage which has some of them in full:

https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/bosworth/

With interesting commentary and it points out that Vergil’s account(written in England in 1500s and 1510s) and Molinet’s from 1490s, matches in many aspects. Vergil’s just more dramatically written.

Spanish account is confusing, because it has lord Tamerlant which apparently didn’t exist.

(But given the non-unified spelling and source being Spanish it is possible it simply heavilly mispelled name.I tried to look for anything which would sound a bit like it, but can’t find it.

Afterthought: Sometimes lords were called by nicknames, some even more often than their actual titles. However i think another possibility is that it is lord of some Welsh place. Because sometimes when it comes to Welsh castles, the name in English is different than the one Welsh.  For example Laugharne Castle, is in Welsh Castell Talacharn. Combined with non-universal spelling, it could then complenetely hide who it was.)

So it is probably not really trust-worthy and it is generally agreed by historions to be based upon hearsay Spanish merchants heard, rather than by somebody who actually was there.

And it in this account that  Richard supposedly refused to flee saying 'God forbid I yield one step. This day I will die as a King or win'.

It is also Spanish account which says Henry Tudor saw Richard charging at him and refused to flee. So basically Spanish say-Nobody flee! We want epic battle! You fight it out! 

I want that too, I am biased for epicness and logic.

And some of my theories about this battles are probably biased due to this.

But trust me, it is not at all a boring battle and screen as far I know, never gave it proper justice and some webpages are like-the commander was in back in safety! Meaning that person doesn’t know how battles worked, how commanders worked etc. 

It is true that by 2nd half of 15th century, commanders often were at back, preferably uphill where they could see what was going on and would move their aditional troops to battle as they thought fit. There is nothing wrong with it.

And in this battle-both men started by doing so.

But we know from accounts of other battles, that not always they stayed at the back! In Flodden, Earl of Surrey and James IV ended up being within lance-distance when James was struck by arrow and died. Hence both of them fought! They didn’t hide!

And just as in Flodden, at Bosworth there were already cannons! And still lots of archers! Either one if they hit you in right place-you’re done for-as James IV’s death proves!

So you can’t say that standing at back of battlefield is safe-hell no! Not the case at all! And you can’t keep saying you know the exact movement of your favourite during entire battle. Only God knows.

But from commanding perspective and given into account Richard tiring more easyily, i think it is unlikely he truly fought in where Norfolk and Oxford(commanders of each vanguard) fought. He kept away from worst of the battle, imo. That is not about cowardice, that is about strategy and tbh knowing when to push foward and when to retreat is sign of not being naive and being mature and experienced. 

I could go in greater detail about Oxford and Norfolk clashing. BUt basically, Norfolk was supposed to be aided by Northumberland and by Stanleys-didn’t receive help of either.  Eventually Oxford’s men started to win, and Norfolk was killed and afterwards lots of men started to flee. His son was wounded and eventually taken prisoner.

Interestingly, it is said Norfolk was either killed by arrow(which imo is somebody confusing Bosworth and Flodden) or that he was killed by Sir John Savage, which was supposed to be fighting under command of Lord Stanley.

But Lord Stanley couldn’t engage in battle, because he promised to Henry Tudor to not fight Richard and Richard III took his son hostage, wishing to insure Lord Stanley would take action against Henry- And some say Richard even ordered execution of Stanley’s son when Lord Stanley didn’t move in Richard’s favour.

Yet the son survived, so order was not carried out. Why?! Idk, maybe somebody took pity upon the boy and thought it immoral to punish him for something he didn’t do. 

It was actually Sir William Stanley’s men who engaged in the battle in the end-Lord Stanley’s brother. So nope, Henry VII’s father in law didn’t come to his aid, his father in law’s brother!

And also, Sir John Savage’s presence shows one very real thing which was like a thing that lots of men did-going around the rules.

Lord Stanley could not formally sent his men to battle to support Henry Tudor. But if some deserted him and joined on their own-it was not his fault!

I am honestly laughing about it because another of Henry’s big supporters, Rhys ap Thomas, welshman who provided him with many troops, has prior promised Richard to attack or aprehend Henry Tudor and his troops if he saw Henry. But he didn’t want to fight him. He supported him. Hence he hid under bridge so that he’d not see him as Henry’s army passed above him.

(They always found a loophole! And it seems Rhys ap Thomas got to battle-so did he at all times made sure he couldn’t see Tudor? Like how did their meeting before battle to discuss strategy go? 

‘This is ridiculous! Tell him to come out of his tent!’ ‘I did, my liege. But he says, he made promise to aprehend you if he saw you. So he cannot go to see you but would like to know where he should place the his men in battlefield so they can best shave the boar.’ Boar was Richard’s symbol, shave the boar means to kill Richard.)

But why didn’t Northumberland’s men move? Some say that he made pact with Henry Tudor, but he was imprisoned after Bosworth, alongside with with earl of Westmorland and Earl of Surrey. That word alongside is important, because Surrey 100% was capured at battle. It was speculated that Westmorland might have been in Bosworth and i think it possible.

The Ballad of Bosworth Field mentions 23 nobles in total-but is not really the best source and doesn’t say which side they fought on!

Though those 3 men eventually they were released, they were definitely treated as prisoners. Westmorland was released relatively fast, but his son was esentially taken as hostage. Surrey was imprisoned for longest, for 3 years and yes, it is the same Earl of Surrey who won against Scots in 1513. He was on loosing side at Bosworth. 

Northumberland regained the trust of Henry Tudor much faster than others and regained all his previous posts. Imo not due to making pact prior with Henry, but possibly by cleverely saying to him-I didn’t engage my men to aid Richard at Bosworth because I knew your cause was right, my liege.’

(He had way to regain favour and used it.)

Historians think nowadays it might have been due to terrain why Northumberland’s men couldn’t engage-literally couldn’t and it shows that Richard placed his troops wrongly. 

It probably didn’t seem like that to Richard from up the hill, but it seems that Northumberland’s men were too close to the marsh and couldn’t move through that terrain, without getting stuck.

(Remember this, before we get to battle of Flodden, because somebody learnt their lesson about marshy terrain.)

Tbh, I am only just stratching the surface of stories of all the notable men from Bosworth. But we can do part 2 next year. Or sooner if you wish to.

I looked at google earth, because it is really hard to imagine the battle terrain from the maps on wiki:

And some things truly are not made clear by it, so I changed it a bit:

I also think it is possible that while Richard charged pass Oxford and rest of Henry’s men, they noted this(his standart, crown on helmet-kind of hard to miss) and deliberately, they moved bit eastward-towards the marsh, to cut him off from rest of his troops. They probably prevented him from retreating same way he came.

But for that to have happened, it means they couldn’t be that engaged with Norfolk’s men. Perhaps by this point, Norfolk already died and his men were fleeing.Northumberland still couldn’t engage, and Richard probably started to realise, that despite being great warrior himself, Oxford was owning his army.

Whetever or not Richard was as good commander as Oxford or not, no longer mattered because Richard’s strategy relied on 3 flanks, but only 2 could engage and he just lost of one those. So he was left with just one flank of his army.

(Imo the narrative that without Stanley’s engaging into battle, Richard would win, is not true.)

It is probably by this point Richard descended to his men, to arouse them to stay and fight. (Because they’d probably fled if he didn’t). But then he spotted his rival. 

(Some say his spies spotted him first, then Richard personally. On google earth if you look from where RIchard would aproximately descent to, and to where Henry was aproximately going, it seems he could have spotted him, himself. There was nothing preventing it(unless the weather was bad), so with good eyesight, Richard could logically assume that some smaller force behind Oxford he could see, was Henry Tudor, even if he couldn’t recognize him from distance. 

And even though Lord Stanley would not engage in this battle, it would have looked to Richard as if Henry Tudor was going towards Dadlington, to Lord Stanley.

Henry might have merely go in that direction to see bit better what was going on(it was slightly more up, but enough to see better)-perhaps bit eastward to see where the heck was Northumberland(and if he wasn’t going around the marsh to get into his back), but Richard would have probably believed things were going to get from bad to worse for him.

Some say Richard was also enraged to see Henry’s royal banner, because he considered himself the only King on the battlefield. 

But I think it was probably combination of Richard realising he could loose, him getting tired and the rage which all combined and caused him charge at Henry valiantly(meaning with great courage and determination).

I don’t know if he ever said it, but imo he certainly at that point thought that he’d either win or die as a warrior King. Richard was not going to flee. He was going to fight it out. 

He took his chance, and he got close to killing Henry Tudor.

Question is what prevented him?

And the easy, and untrue answer would be Sir William Stanley’s men.

It was more complicated than that.

Before I dive into it it’d like to point out that Richard’s primary weapon on horseback would be his lance.(that’d be true for most cavalry men.) Only after he no longer had usable lance, he would take out his secondary weapons-probably war hammer or sword. In documentary about his scoliosis they had Dominic train with sword, but also shown reinactors with other weapons-so I think they don’t actually know which secondary weapon Richard’d prefer. And there’d be way more many to choose from than just sword.

But since portrait from Tudor times shows him with broken sword, I think it is possible, Richard’s secondary weapon of choice was indeed a sword.

So Richard and his guard charged(Richard with lance in hand, on horseback) toward Henry Tudor and his guards.

So far very logical, and matching the accounts. But then things get murky.

I am not questioning Richard’s bravery or that he indeed got close to killing Henry.

I am questioning what happened when Henry and Richard and their guards clashed. They didn’t just wave around their swords and lances in the air, before Stanleys arrived. They were killing each other!

Imo, the guards deserve way more credit that they’ve been given!

(And way more screen time! These are most interesting parts of the battle and I don’t think they ever got on screen!)

Because Henry’s guards prevented Richard from killing his oponent and deciding the battle in his favour, before arrival of William Stanley’s men.

Richard’s charge(with his men) seems to have took Richmond’s forces by surprise. Idk how, but several things point to that being the case, despite Vergil claiming Henry saw Richard coming. (Seeing him few seconds before his arrival vs few minutes could be big difference!)

Mainly the fact that Oxford left pikemen in Henry’s guard and they didn’t suround their master to protect him from cavalry charge.

Rhys ap Thomas also left men with Tudor and there were also French mercenaries with him. And yet, somehow they didn’t see Richard charging at them. 

Probably because Henry’s men were moving in other direction and Richard came from behind them. They didn’t expect him to pass just next to battling forces and separate from his army. 

Richard was really determined to get to Henry Tudor and kill him.

With his lance he killed Sir William Brandon(father of Charles Brandon)- Henry’s standart bearer and then with his already broken lance unseated Sir John Cheyne(he knocked him off the horse). That was no small feat.

While documentary about Richard says Cheyne was over 6′ tall, his bones suggest he was aproximately about 6′8′’!!! (How big was his horse?!)

Sir John Cheyne’s tomb(bellow), look at the seize of those legs!

Really huge knight and Richard unhorsed him, as if he was nothing.

He broke off his lance probably completely by this point and probably took out sword to kill Henry Tudor.

But here the accounts warry. What exactly happened, when Richard managed to get through two of Henry bodyguards? Nobody knows truly.

Spanish account says Henry saw Richard comming, and refused to flee, and Richard refused to flee before that.(So both were brave.)

French account say exact opposite. That when Richard came, Henry dismounted his horse and hid behind his men as coward. 

Many websites put this French account among ‘facts’ of Bosworth and it is most spoken about.

Which is more likely to be true? Neither!

Imo, all foreign accounts of any battle, are highly unlikely to be true. If it is not by person who was at least once in that country, don’t believe a word! That is what i learned to do when researching battles. Because the bias, It’s unbelievable! Nonsense some foreign chronicles wrote is sometimes making me question whetever or not they know about which battle they are writing about.

And it is even more unbelievable, that people know some of these chroniclers were working for party which was very biased against one side-and they are not bothered by it! (Unless it is Vergil-whose credibility is apparently 0 despite having best chance to meet survivors of Bosworth-from both sides, while living at English court. But tbh, I don’t trust Vergil that much. Because even if he wished to be truthful and indeed based it upon survivors account, those survivors now worked for Tudors and would not say anything against him.)

Basically they believe Chapuys’s of their time-and for record, I am Catherine of Aragon’s fan and I don’t believe a word from Chapuys.

That account of dismounting is clearly propaganda by side supporting Richard/Yorks, because it doesn’t make sense!

Armoured knight had no reason to get off his horse. There is no logical advantage to it! Henry’d actually be better target for Richard if he dismounted! If he had time to make a move and hide-he could move his horse and his men could just as well suround him while he was on that horse.

Me as amateur can see that and people who seriously studied this battle, don’t see anything wrong with that account?!

That account is illogical. It basically claims Henry was not only coward, but also an imbecile!

And imo this account actually is slighting Richard too. Bear in mind, what I am about to say is purely my theory. Not supported by anything. OK? So don’t claim it is a fact, because I might be completely wrong about it!

But if Richard’s charge was indeed big surprise and he fought so valiantly, imo, it’s possible that after getting through two of Henry’s knights, he got to Henry.

He got close enough to kill and maybe Henry had no time to hide! Even if he wanted to. Only to ready himself to face the more experienced warrior.

He wasn’t experienced enough to fight Richard off imo.

But in full armour, both on horseback, perhaps he managed to at least defend himself for few crucial seconds.

It is purely my theory-but dent in Henry’s right cheek could have been from battlewound. Perhaps from Bosworth. Perhaps from Richard himself.

Richard could try to stab him through gap in helmet. In full armour this could be the most exposed place.  

If the helmet was not completely covering Henry’s face or if he had part of it up(which commanders did sometimes to see better) and not have enough time to put it down. It’s possible. 

By the way despite coming with this theory before reading Vergil’s account, I seem to agree with what he wrote:

‘But yet Henry abode the brunt far longer than ever his own soldiers would have weened’ (ween meaning think or suppose). Virgil doesn’t directly say Henry and Richard exchanged the blows, but I think they might have. Or at least Henry defending himself while Richard kept attacking.

Somehow Henry, managed to block Richard’s blows, at least partially-gaining that dent in right cheek. And here can be explanation of why Henry dismounted-despite it being absolutely illogical.

Maybe one of the diverted blows hit Henry’s horse. Maybe seriously wounded the animal or even killed it. Henry had no choice but to dismount.

I don’t know if he managed to jump off while animal collapsed or if he got pinned beneath it(even if for just partially). 

His horse being done for is only logical reason why he’d dismount, and then it’d be only logical for his men to suround him. 

You’d not separate if you don’t have to, during battle, because you’re rather have your back protected by your fellow men, and just focus on fighting enemy on one side. So Henry Tudor would stay among his men.

As footsoldier, Henry couldn’t fight in same capacity as cavalry man and it was most logical if he stood shoulder to shoulder with them, them keeping tight formation.

If he was pinned under the horse, then perhaps they actually did suround him, to protect him, they basically hid him behind them.

(Which would meet the French report, although-not be account of Henry’s cowardice, but rather Richard’s valor and strenght-if he managed to kill or cripple the horse, possibly with just one blow.)

But Richard now faced a problem. 

Sir Cheyne’s charge, him putting himself between Richard and Richmond, bought those men few more seconds to react. Richard’s attack lost both moment of surprise and momentum, while he was taking care of Sir Cheyne and he didn’t manage to kill Tudor despite being so close to doing so. And now all of Tudor’s guards were ready to face Richard’s.

It was on! 

And William Stanley’s men were quickly aproaching. 

Even if Richard wished to try to return to his army, the closest path was now blocked. He could try to go around the marsh towards east and perhaps try to join Northumberland. 

(This would not be act of cowardice, but tactical retreat. It happens in battles.)

Potentially Richard’s men faced another issue.

Because perhaps Sir Cheyne was only stunned momentarally. Or not at all. Man of that size and reputable strenght picking himself up fast and attacking from their back! Not good scenario for Richard’s men, though not found in historical records. But certainly my pick on how potentially Richard’s standard bearer lost use of both his legs. Sir Cheyne crushing them both with one blow and cutting through Richard’s men, one by one.

But you might think-that is impossible because that standard bearer is supposed to be with Richard, when he died. And Richard died hundreds of feet from where he clashed with Henry, pushed there by enemy forces! But that is not proven to have happened and it is highly unlikely scenario.

He could be pushed many feet away, but several hundred? No!

He might have disappeared from sight of Richmond, but he certainly was not hundreds of feet away where he died. If I am not mistaken, it was brooch found on the site at that place, which sparked the theory that Richard died so far away.

But that brooch could have belonged to his supporter, who fled. Or perhaps fell of pocket of anybody who looted the dead of the battle.

Stanleys arrival didn’t save Henry directly from Richard’s own attack, but it certainly saved lives of many of his men, and improved their morals thousand times. With newly found vigor, Oxford’s pikemen, welshmen, french mercenaries, Stanleys and other attacked. 

It’s likely that as soon as they could, they pushed Richard’s forces towards the marsh-knowing it’d be difficult terrain for them.

(Still close to where two rivals clashed.)

Richard’s men fell one by one, killed by Tudor forces. His own horse got stuck in the marsh. 

I don’t believe that ‘Kindom for horse’ happened. But I think given Richard’s scolliosis and him tiring up more easily, he’d have disadvantage on foot. He would wish to be back on horseback, where he had better chance of surviving. So perhaps he indeed asked for horse. It’d be logical for him to do so. 

Richard died in thick of his enemies, killed by many blows.

Henry Tudor's first Royal Proclamation, dated 22-3 August 1485, stated Richard III was killed at a place called Sandeford. There is heated debate where exactly that is.  In 1858 James Hollings identified 'Sandeford' as the point where the present Shenton to Sutton Cheney road passes over a watercourse that flows from Market Bosworth. Part of the road which crossed the ford was apparently known as 'the Sand Road' - so-called because the inhabitants of Shenton used to traverse it when exercising their ancient right to take sand free from the north side of Ambion Hill - and on this basis it has been assumed that the water crossing was 'the Sand ford'.

Problem is, sometimes stream’s move a bit(even big river can do that), so it is likely that Richard died somewhere near the road and stream, close to the marsh. 

If the stream was going bit more south than nowadays in 1485, that basically leaves us with really big section around the road:

Who exactly killed Richard is uncertain, although Molinet’s account and poem by Welsh poet say or suggest it was Welshmen-probably one of men of Rhys ap Thomas. Which is entirely possible given he put many men to Tudor cause. 

But it is also possible if not likely, it was not just one man who killed Richard but multiple.  King Richard's body shows that the skeleton had 11 wounds, eight of them to the skull, clearly inflicted in battle and suggesting he had lost his helmet.

He was last English King to die in battle, and truly died a warrior’s death.

While his body was then paraded around in Leicester to prove he was truly dead, he wasn’t buried dishonorably as being found in car park would suggest. He was buried in Greyfriars Church, which didn’t survive Dissolution of monasteries.

It is said Henry VII paid 50 pounds for momunent(for Richard’s tomb) in 1495. No small amount at those days.

This might seem strange to us that he paid for tomb of his rival, but imo it could be good move for propaganda, especially if it also depicted Richard with broken sword. 

Richard is currently burried in Leicester Cathedral and tbh I hate how modern his monument looks:

But at least he is buried properly. 

Too bad his nephews were not given same honour.

So that was bit of shade at the end, I hope you’ve enjoyed it.

[sweetestpopcorn]

Hiiii! Do you also think maybe Daemon and Rhaenyra were based off of Richard III rumored relationship with Elizabeth of York? Age difference is the same along with maligned uncle vs first born daughter beloved by the kingdom, GRRM does mix and match a lot, while the Dance is clearly the Anarchy and thr WOTFK is War of the Roses I can’t help notice the similarities

Hi there!

No, I absolutely do not think there is anything in common between Richard III and Elizabeth and Daemon and Rhaenyra. The Dance is based on the Civil War between Queen Matilda/Maud and her cousin Stephen, not on the Wars of the Roses. That would be the current ASOIAF timeline.

But to elaborate on this, at the time they were alive there was no evidence of any romance going on between Richard III and Elizabeth of York. The only evidence that we have presently comes from a letter some centuries later in which apparently Elizabeth expressed a desire to wed her uncle Richard, but there is suspicion and some evidence that the contents of the letters were changed.

What we do know was that actually Richard III was looking into an alliance with Portugal. He wanted to marry his niece Elizabeth with the future Manuel of Portugal and in turn wanted to marry Princess Joana of Portugal himself.

It has been suggested that any rumour of him wanting to marry Elizabeth was actually made up by his enemies to make him look bad and tarnish his reputation. After his wife Anne died, he even sent Elizabeth away from court and to Sheriff Hutton castle while he negotiated this alliance with Portugal.

Elizabeth later went on to marry Henry VII uniting the two fighting Houses of York and Lancaster.

Here's a very good article on the whole Richard III and Elizabeth of York thing:

Comparing them now to Daemon and Rhaenyra, Daemon was never king or heir, only ever prince. Rhaenyra was enamoured with him since she was a child, but later the two were parted for roughly 7 years. Around this time, Rhaenyra was named heir (when she was 8 years of age) and Daemon was away conquering the Stepstones. She was set on becoming the queen one day and he got further and further from that possibility with every new kid Alicent gave Viserys.

Daemon returns to court around the time Rhaenyra is 14 going on 15 and by both sources of Fire and Blood the two of them engage in a romantic affair, displaying every behaviour of two people who are interested in each other with Daemon doing everything plus to court Rhaenyra. The thing the two sources differ on is:

- how far their physical affair went (i.e., Septon Eustace says all the way and points Ser Arryk Cargyll as the person who discovered it seeing them abed; Mushroom maintains bases 1, 2, and 3 and names himself as the person who told the king what was going on);

-what Rhaenyra's feelings were on the matter (i.e., Septon Eustace says she loved Daemon and wanted to marry him; Mushroom says she wanted Criston and was using Daemon but Daemon was getting to bases 1, 2, and 3 to get her to be given to him in marriage -> during the Dance though, Mushroom describes Daemon as "Rhaenyra's beloved consort" *rolling my eyes*);

Then Daemon get's sent away (again) and two years go by. Rhaenyra eventually marries Laenor, he marries Laena, the two meet again, Laena dies, Rhaenyra comforts Daemon, Laenor dies, Daemon comforts Rhaenyra, she get's pregnant and they marry, fast forward she's Queen and he's her Prince Consort.

I see nothing in common between them and Elizabeth and Richard besides them being uncle and niece.

I know Emma Frost and Philippa Gregory (big sigh) have tried to push a very different narrative but the thing is there is just no evidence for what they suggest. I think they would be quite good in asoiaf adaptations though since clearly they like incest.

The closest characters in history I know to Daemon and Rhaenyra would actually be two portuguese queens named Maria I and Maria II. Maria I married her uncle Pedro and had quite a happy marriage with him. She was said to have lost her mind due to grief from losing a lot of children and her husband.

This is them:

Then we have Maria II. She was the daughter of King Pedro IV, and Pedro had quite the ambitious brother named Prince Miguel. Miguel always wanted to be king, and he was quite ruthless. Pedro eventually betrothed Maria II to Miguel (while Maria was still a child). They came to Portugal and Pedro stayed in Brazil. Once in Portugal Miguel gave a big old "F_ck you" to Pedro and decided to take the crown for himself and started a civil war with his brother. He never did marry Maria II though.

There is actually a very good Brazilian soap opera called "Quinto dos Infernos" that covers this time period. I think you can find it on Youtube but unless you can speak Portuguese I don't think you will understand it XD funny enough though Pedro was the ladies' man, not his brother Miguel.

This was the actor playing King Pedro (you're welcome everyone XD and yes there are so many hot Brazilian actors, y'all don't know what you're missing out on XD)

His brother Miguel:

Boy would George have a field day with Portuguese history... our first king went to war against his mother... and her lover 😂 King Alfonso IV almost went to war with his father and then his son Pedro went to war with him. #familydrama

But yeah... nothing in common from where I am standing.

All the best to you and follow me for more photos of the actor that played Pedro IV X'D

[terribletudorsandvilevictorians]

I have a new and long post today about Cardinal Wolsey, so it will be split up into 2 parts. 😊

PART ONE:

For some reason, Henry VIII certainly did like arresting people on November 4th. In 1530, he arrested Thomas Wolsey, and in 1538, he arrested Margaret Pole, Henry Pole, and Henry Courtenay. We’ll get to that second set of arrestees later on, but for now, let’s take a brief look at Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. He certainly had a wild ride, from a degree at Oxford at age 15 to becoming Henry VII’s chaplain to his trip all the way to the top as Henry VIII’s chief minister from 1515 to 1529.

His rise is even more impressive when you know that he started as a butcher’s son. He was one of the successful “new men” of the Tudor era, but the more power and wealth he gained, the more the traditional aristocracy resented his meteoric rise. While Anne Boleyn usually gets the blame for Wolsey’s fall, I think that the evidence points more to these grand Tudor aristocrats pulling him down at last when he couldn’t get Pope Clement VII to approve Henry’s divorce from Katherine of Aragon. On October 9th, 1529, Wolsey was indicted for praemunire, which never seemed very fair to me. As the Oxford dictionary tells us, refers to “the offense of asserting or maintaining papal jurisdiction in England” against the supremacy of the king. But what was Wolsey supposed to do? As a cardinal, he was torn between king and pope, damned if he did and executed if he didn’t

[thistle-and-thorn]

Hi,

I think you’re maybe busy but if you get some time please tell me some stuff you love about the wolf hall trilogy (or even things that frustrate you). I’m having Rafe Sadler sadness hours just now (due to complicated real life projection stuff) and I just love to hear people talk about Wolf Hall so…

Hope you’re having a lovely All Hallows’ and that you have a beautiful week.

♥️♥️♥️s

I AM BUSY which means I am actively searching for ways to procrastinate so thank you for this!

1. I love the writing. Hilary Mantel just knew how to turn a phrase, for real. It’s like walking through a maze of language and finding new dimensions of how to express things.

2. I love the sense of immediacy. Like, I feel like I know the events around this historical period pretty intimately. And when Thomas More and Anne Boleyn were being executed at the end of the first two novels; I was riveted and shocked? Like omg she DIED. I didn’t know that (with my seven Anne Boleyn biographies on the wall behind me like). And I think that comes from a really careful use of perspective. In historical fiction novels, often, there’s a character where there’s a nudge nudge wink wink moment of prophecy. And it’s like that is not real life at all. And it puts you the reader in a sort of Greek chorus position? We are Cassandra screaming in grief as Cromwell and Cramner sit by the fire and share a warm human moment knowing that they will die in horrific ways.

3. I adore how she made Cromwell an actual sixteenth century man. Too often, historical fiction works to make characters sympathetic by making an argument for their morality and it feels out of step with their time and the power structures in place. She doesn’t try to make him sympathetic at all really and I think, the acts of cruelty that he suffers and acts out are complicated by that. Cromwell does terrible things…and we should still root against the cruelty done unto him because of his dignity as a human being not because he’s a good human being. It’s a bigger and more radical political point than a person should be treated well because we can relate to them or we consider them moral.

4. I love the humor in these books. There are really wry and clever moments in here. I laughed out loud multiple times throughout.

5. I love how the books’ statements about power are really statements about grief. It’s a trilogy about how corrosive grief can be. It’s not that reflections power and absolutism aren’t cornerstones of the books—but it’s about a little boy who lost his father and about a man who lost his wife and child. Henry, too, in his dream scene is like trying to find out what Henry VII wanted from him, they’re all just boys trying to rise above and seek agency from the men who made them. And, in Cromwell’s case, he gravitated towards Henry as a substitute for his father, a new maker, gravitated to him even more when Wolsey (a kind and loving father figure) and his family dies (and takes with them, his stable and happy ending). And like a lot of people who don’t process their trauma in a healthy way, the man who on a surface level seems the opposite of Walter—powerful, charming, beautiful—ends up being exactly like his father. The scene where Cromwell internally roars, “My father would not have allowed this to happen!” broke me apart into a million pieces. He’s a little boy!!!! And how it prevents him from binding with his own son!!!!!!!!!! *screams cries throws up*

6. This is a detail but I love some of the motifs in this book. The legend of giants as kings; “Stephen Gardiner is going out as he is coming in” repeated in every book!!!!!!!!!!!!! Iykyk

7. I love how each book ends with an execution and how each book we get a slightly different Cromwell? Like he gets deader and deader until he is a mere husk of a man with nothing left to live for!!! We Stan.

8. I love how, at least in Cromwell’s mind, he could fuck any single person he wanted at any time 😂😂😂 good for him. And it says so much about his conception of power?!?! The fact that there’s also all these potential love stories that just fizzle and die before they even leave his imagination and the hope for a future that bears any resemblance to the normal domesticity he starts out with disappears. The way his expectations and hopes for new love dissipate the more this happens as the life slowly drains from him. I love a character that’s a dead man from the beginning!!!!!

9. There are some great side characters. My two favorites are Cramner—the founder of Anglican Communion as comic relief, I mean….and Chapuys. I will never stop scream laughing at the scene Cramner is like “Do you want to meet my German wife? No, we can’t communicate but she’s so hot lololol.” It’s like 90 Day Fiancé: Tudor Style and I cannot deal with it. The Mirror and the Light scene where Cromwell and Chapuys spend two pages talking about ravioli sent me into another astral plane. They are in love!

I will say that I think the last book is way way way too long. I love the last book and there’s some good moments but it needed to be edited pretty significantly. It takes place over a relatively peaceful period of time, historically, or Cromwell was out of The action as in the Pilgrimage of Grace and so Cromwell’s life lacks the really tight narrative arc of the first two. There was a lot of time spent on minor episodes that—unlike some of the more obscure things cited in the first two books—didn’t seem to add to a lot of the series’ overall thesis. Though I like the device of him revisiting these stories he’s already told and putting new slants on them and showing us what moments haunt him repeatedly, I think it had potential to lose the thread a bit.

What about you?

[everydayshalloween]

eleanor of aquitaine, both husbands, kids from both marriages, and any grandchildren you prefer <3

Aight that is indeed a lot of people...LET'S DO IT :D They'll be pretty short bc that's a lot of people

Eleanor of Aquitaine:

-One hell of a sarcastic woman, everything she says usually bleeds sarcasm (her daughter Matilda is equally just as sarcastic)

-Somehow has the patience to put up with her kids' dumbassery

-T A L L W O M A N (very tall I don't make the rules)

-Says she loves her kids equally, but prefers her daughters (and Richard) more

-Remember how I said Empress Matilda is intimidating? Meet her equally intimidating daughter in-law

Henry II:

-Poor guy misses half of his wife's sarcasm and then immediately turns to stare at her like "wait a god damn minute"

-"I don't know where my sons got the idea of teenage rebellion from-" Has family members who are the living definition of teenage rebellion

-While his wife is tall af, he's actually pretty average. So their children range from tall to short.

-"I had a bad day and will now proceed to make it everyone's problem :)"

Louis VII:

-Well y'know, one day you're married and have 2 beautiful daughters and the next day you're a single dad

-Tries his best to be a dad, but let's be real dad wasn't part of the job description

-Watches the absolute chaos that is his ex-wife's new family with a bowl of popcorn

-Pretty much a girl dad because that's what happens when you have 5 daughters

Marie of France (the eldest):

-On pretty good terms with her half-siblings on both sides, but holy SHIT is it tiring to be the eldest on both sides

-Pretty chill mom (four kids are easy to manage)

-Geoffrey would probably be her favorite brother. As for favorite sister? She won't say anything.

-Actually has a little bit of sass in her, she just doesn't show it.

Alix of France:

-Way to happy to be here

-Much like her older sister, she's a pretty chill mom; however, 7 kids is a lot more work than 4 kids

-Tougher than she looks with an added bonus of some of her mother's sarcasm

-Her and Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany would've gotten along SO well. She would've been the BEST aunt hands down.

William of England (the baby):

-Baby

-Absolute baby

-That's it send tweet

Henry the Young King:

-Best big brother...but only to his younger sisters. His brothers can go suck an egg half the time.

-I feel like he totally could be like his mother if he wanted to. Just to piss his father off.

-Him and Matilda are the number one sibling duo they do everything together

-Him and Margaret of France? Best friends to husband and wife. You can't convince me otherwise.

Matilda of England:

-Looks like her mom, acts like her mom. (Mom loves it, dad hates it. Grandma however gets a kick out of it)

-100% done with her siblings' shit

-Probably told the Holy Roman Emperor to fuck off after giving birth to her third kid.

-Absolutely 100% done with that guy's shit too btw.

Richard the Lionheart:

-His mother absolutely adores him as much as his sisters

-Him and his wife have a somewhat healthy relationship that's much better than his parents (I said what I said) however, they're more friends than a married couple

-Him and his sister Joan are the MOST CHAOTIC PAIR IN THE WHOLE FAMILY

-Stopped giving a fuck by the time he was a teenager (that was a GREAT decision)

Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany:

-He's the sibling who has dirt on anyone and everyone who fucked with him

-Would have a mug that says "#1 Dad" let's be real. He'd also be the type of dad who shows off photos of his kids bc he's so proud.

-Probably the only brother with a marriage effective in both the management and family life departments

-"Of course I'm friends with Dad's enemy's son and Richard's maybe-boyfriend. What's the worst that could happen?" Famous last words-

Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile:

-Named after her mother, acts nothing like her

-Would probably cry if someone yells at her

-Best mom ever (her and Geoffrey would probably just talk about their kids for hours)

-"We just have a few kids, nothing too bad." Has more than "a few" kids

Joan of England:

-Looks like her dad, acts a LOT like her grandmother and mother

-Takes NO shit from anyone (probably called the king of Cyprus a bitch after her and her sister in-law shipwrecked and he captured them)

-Remember how Joan's mom is tall and her dad isn't as tall? Well...Joan's short. Very short. Which adds to the chaos levels.

-The amount of S A S S this woman radiates

King John (the youngest):

-Probably gets picked on for being the baby of the family

-"Yes I know I married a 12 year old. What about it?"

-I would say good uncle since several of his siblings had kids, but *gestures to the whole mess with Geoffrey's kids*

-Tried to be a good dad, but y'know

And now...some of the MANY grandkids...

Berengaria, Queen of Castile:

-The apple of her parents' eyes and the eldest

-Best big sister best big sister BEST BIG SIS-

-Best mom as well

-Has no idea what kind of stuff her family's on

Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany:

-Her parents' baby (until her sister was born)

-Would absolutely give her uncle and cousin hell for what they did if they weren't kings (and if her dad hadn't beaten her to it)

-Would've adored her half-sisters from her mother's third marriage

-Something tells me she probably would've adopted some of her dad's behaviors (because that's the Plantagenet way)

Arthur I, Duke of Brittany:

-I've made several posts about him, so...coolest big brother ever. He lets his little sisters sit with him in meetings.

-Probably acts a lot like his mother, but has a bit of the anger that runs through his dad's family

-If him and Philip II of France's daughter Marie had married...I'm predicting a possible power couple right there.

-He would've been a great king god damn it John-

Joan, Queen of Scotland:

-Hopeless romantic 100%

-Gets along with her brothers so well, it almost rivals Henry the Young King and Matilda

-Is very much like her aunt Eleanor, she will cry if someone yells at her

-Tries not to pay attention to her shitstorm of a family

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress:

-The younger daughter and namesake of Marie of France, she is the spitting image of her mother and acts almost exactly like her.

-Absolutely adores her two daughters despite the small amount of time she had with them.

-Her husband is head over heels in love with her, but she wishes he would just...calm down a little bit.

-Got along with her siblings for the most part

[winterdollsblog]

I received a free ARC via netgalley, all thoughts and opinions are my own.

Full spoiler free review below the cut

Three outlaw knights. Three secrets. One last mission.

August 1485. The eve of the Battle of Bosworth. King Richard III summons his loyal and grizzled retainer, Sir John Hawker, and charges him with one final mission. After the battle, he must return a priceless ruby – one of the mysterious Tears of Byzantium – to its giver, the Doge of Venice. Richard believes the jewel has brought ill luck to his family, and wants rid of it before anything else can go wrong. Hawker is also sworn to protect Richard’s newly knighted bastard son, an arrogant youth unaware of his true parentage. But Richard’s commands are overheard by a Tudor spy.

When the king falls in battle, Hawker, his royal bastard, and another “lost” knight make common cause and flee the field with Tudor agents in hot pursuit of both the ruby and the potential Plantagenet heir. Not knowing who to trust and with England falling under the grip of Henry VII, Hawker and his small Yorkist band take the only course left open: Venice, with all its conspiracies – and the love Hawker left behind there...

I just loved this story so much. But fictional tale weaved into the backdrop of a history I grew up surrounded with was absolutely gripping.

The twists and turns were addicting and seeing the story shift and change felt so fascinating.

I really love Hawker as a character, the layers of his character building was amazing. He felt well-rounded and seeing his approach to different situations and having to make new plans was very well-done.

The dynamics shared between the men-at-arms, personally, gave me a form of found family vibes that I very much enjoyed.

The mythology surrounding the jewel just interested me so that, I honestly had to remind myself it was pure fiction sometimes.

I never wanted to put this down, but whenever I did: I couldn't stop thinking about what would happy next. Having an insight in what characters in particular were doing and their reasons for their journey was never boring to me.

All in all, I really enjoyed this and would wholeheartedly recommend if you're a fan of this genre.

A firm 5⭐

Hawker and The King's Jewel is available for purchase on 21/07/2022 or you can pre-order on Amazon